There is no simple answer that
explains where words come from. So, as parents and teachers help children to
talk, they should understand that there is no clear theory that explains how
children learn the language they need to become skillful in reading and
communication. However, there are some key theories that have been developed to
explain language learning: behavioral, linguistic, and interactional. Looking
at the theories and the history of language theory development helps us think
about language development from different points of view. The shortcomings of
these theories illustrate that language is not easily explained.

A major concern in understanding
language acquisition is how these capacities are picked up by infants from what
appears to be very little input. A range of theories of language acquisition
has been created in order to explain this apparent problem. These theories
differ but they form the basis of the mystery behind language development among
children. Thus, this paper examined the major language development theories in
children.

Language acquisition forms a
critical stage in development of children. Thus, an examination of various
theories that are used to explain language development among children remain of
great importance not only to teachers but also to parents and caretakers. These
theories can unveil, though not wholly, the mysteries surrounding language
development.

There are various language
development theories that have been propagated by various proponents. This
section briefly examines four main theories. These include Behavioral Theory,
Nativist linguistic theories, social interactionist theory and cognitive theory

Behaviorists believe language is
something that can be observed and measured. The need to use language is
stimulated and language is uttered in response to stimuli. To the behaviorist,
competence in the rules of language is not as important as the ability to speak
it; speaking is what makes language real. Knowledge is a mental state and the
structure of a language doesnít make it a language; it is the function of
speaking words that makes a language a language.

B.F. Skinner is perhaps the best
known behaviorist who posited that children are conditioned by their
environment to respond to certain stimuli with language. When children speak
the language of their parents they are rewarded and become more skillful. They
grow in their ability to respond in a manner that responds to the environmental
stimuli given by his parents. This shapes a childís language more than
knowledge of rules. (Gleason and Ratner 2009).

While most would agree that a
language-rich environment helps children achieve success in communication,
experts havenít been able to prove this with experiments outside the lab. The
behaviorists approach has been criticized for not taking into account the many
and varied influences on a childís language learning.

The manner in which a child
acquires language is a matter long debated by linguists and child psychologists
alike. The father of most nativist theories of language acquisition is Noam
Chomsky, who brought greater attention to the innate capacity of children for
learning language, which had widely been considered a purely cultural
phenomenon based on imitation.

Nativist linguistic theories hold
that children learn through their natural ability to organize the laws of
language, but cannot fully utilize this talent without the presence of other
humans. This does not mean, however, that the child requires formal tutelage of
any sort. Chomsky claims that children are born with a hard-wired Language
Acquisition Device (LAD) in their brains. They are born with the major
principles of language in place, but with many parameters to set (such as
whether sentences in the language(s) they are to acquire must have explicit
subjects). According to nativist theory, when the young child is exposed to a
language, their LAD makes it possible for them to set the parameters and deduce
the grammatical principles, because the principles are innate. (Bigge and
Shermis, 1998).

This is still a very
controversial view, and many linguists and psychologists do not believe
language is as innate as Chomsky argues. There are important arguments both for
and against Chomsky's view of development. One idea central to the Chomskian
view is the idea of Universal Grammar, which posits that all languages have the
same basic underlying structure, and that specific languages have rules that
transform these underlying structures into the specific patterns found in given
languages. Another argument is that without a propensity for language, human
infants would be unable to learn such complete speech patterns in a natural
human environment where complete sentences are the exception

More recently, researchers have
shown that parents react differently to childrenís grammatically correct and
incorrect utterances. This shapes the childís behavior and therefore challenges
the belief that language is innate.

This theory is an approach to
language acquisition that stresses the environment and the context in which the
language is being learned. It focuses on the pragmatics of language rather than
grammar, which should come later. In this approach, the beginning speaker and
the experienced speaker--be they child and adult or second-language learner and
fluent speaker--exist in a negotiated arrangement where feedback is always
possible. The basic appeal of this approach is the importance it places on the
home and the cultural environment in early-childhood language acquisition. Language,
according to this theory, is not an innate ability. Rather, it develops in
negotiating your environment. Hence, vocabulary is bound by context or,
alternatively, by the culture within which speech is necessary and
understandable.

This approach to language
acquisition is based on culture and environment. Thus, it is not universal in
scope. In fact, the theory holds that language is never universal, but always
context- and time-bound. On one hand, this means that language seems to be
provincial, but also utilitarian, because it develops in the environment where
it is most needed and most likely to be understood. On the other hand, it keeps
the level of basic comprehension solely on the level of the initial
environment. Transitions to other environments, at least on the surface, seem
to be a problem. (Lewis, 2010).

The primary reason to support
interactionism is based largely on the idea that utterances make sense if the
teacher is aware of the context. This is the primary feature of the interactionist
view. In this case, thought does not make objects; it reflects them and the
context in which they are found. Comprehensibility, rather than grammar, is the
primary concern of early-childhood language acquisition. On the other hand, the
mere absorption of words, in Chomsky's view, leads to nonsense phrases that
must be corrected through the teaching of structure and grammar. One view
stresses the relation between learner and culture; the other, between learner
and arbitrary utterances of experienced speakers.

This theory was proposed by Jean
Piaget.He theorized that language is made up of symbols and structures,
but exhibits itself as a childís mental abilities mature. In addition, language
is only one of many human mental or cognitive activities.

Piagetís view of how children's
minds work and develop has been enormously influential, particularly in
educational theory. His particular insight was the role of maturation (simply
growing up) in children's increasing capacity to understand their world: they
cannot undertake certain tasks until they are psychologically mature enough to
do so. His research has spawned a great deal more, much of which has undermined
the detail of his own, but like many other original investigators, his
importance comes from his overall vision. (Wood, 1998).

Piaget proposed that children's
thinking does not develop entirely smoothly: instead, there are certain points
at which it "takes off" and moves into completely new areas and
capabilities. He saw these transitions as taking place at about 18 months, 7
years and 11 or 12 years. This has been taken to mean that before these ages
children are not capable (no matter how bright) of understanding things in
certain ways, and has been used as the basis for scheduling the school
curriculum. (Satterly, 1987).

Language
development is a complex and a unique human quality that no theory is as yet
able to completely explain. Newer theories will probably develop from what has
already been explored. This could be taken from cognitive to interactionist
approach where the relationship of psychology and the environment needs
to be explored in greaterdepth.References